Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8
Blueogre2

The True Meaning of Life

249 posts in this topic

.

.

This debate was never about what I can prove to you, .

.

This is where you are wrong ,I asked for the evidence you had and you didn't provide it and you still haven't

fullywired

Edited by fullywired

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is where you are wrong ,I asked for the evidence you had and you didn't provide it and you still haven't

fullywired

Go back to our original conversation and my own claim. "I have personal objective evidences for the existence of god and angels" which is how i know they exist. THEN you asked me for those personal objective evidences, and I went into detail as to what they were.

I also have exactly the same personal objective evidences for the existence of my wife and my dog, which is how i know they exist.

Proving the existence of any of these entities to you and demonstrating those personal objective evidences to you, is a completely different kettle of fish and another issue entirely. I never said I could prove anything to you, but i can prove things to myself.

I have tried to explain this to you a number of times but you aren't listening. For example, I asked what objective proofs you use to establish the reality of something in your life. Not how you could prove such things to me. You can't prove anything to me that you know to be true, if i chose not to believe and trust you or your proofs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go back to our original conversation and my own claim. "I have personal objective evidences for the existence of god and angels" which is how i know they exist. THEN you asked me for those personal objective evidences, and I went into detail as to what they were.

I also have exactly the same personal objective evidences for the existence of my wife and my dog, which is how i know they exist.

Proving the existence of any of these entities to you and demonstrating those personal objective evidences to you, is a completely different kettle of fish and another issue entirely. I never said I could prove anything to you, but i can prove things to myself.

I have tried to explain this to you a number of times but you aren't listening. For example, I asked what objective proofs you use to establish the reality of something in your life. Not how you could prove such things to me. You can't prove anything to me that you know to be true, if i chose not to believe and trust you or your proofs.

Objective evidence is that which can be verified by a third party. A personal anecdote of an event or events in ones life may very well be true accounts, but they are not "objective evidence". I think you're misusing the phrase "objective evidence". You may have personal evidence, you may even be right, but what you do not have is objective evidence. If someone else saw what happened to you in your life, then they can corroborate your story, but it is still not objective. When people examine physical data that everyone has access to, this IS objective evidence. Everyone can access it, and everyone can analyse it. They may even arrive at contradictory conclusions of what that objective evidence means. Anecdotes and descriptions of events or people are not objectively verifiable unless everyone has access to it.

I see what you are trying to say, you don't have a "belief" in God, to you God is as real as your wife and your dog, you've experienced God and therefore God exists. But that is not objective evidence. It is personal evidence. In the context of your comment, the words "Personal objective" evidence are incompatible terms. As I said, I understand what you are trying to say, but it is by no means objective - Objective evidence by its very definition is something that other people can examine and verify. A personal experience, no matter how true, is not objectively verifiable.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anecdotes and descriptions of events or people are not objectively verifiable unless everyone has access to it.

A personal experience, no matter how true, is not objectively verifiable.

There is another problem outside the inability to objectively verify personal testimony. This is that fact that we fool ourselves, and the more we want something to be so, the greater the chance that this is what we have done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go back to our original conversation and my own claim. "I have personal objective evidences for the existence of god and angels" which is how i know they exist. THEN you asked me for those personal objective evidences, and I went into detail as to what they were.

I also have exactly the same personal objective evidences for the existence of my wife and my dog, which is how i know they exist.

Proving the existence of any of these entities to you and demonstrating those personal objective evidences to you, is a completely different kettle of fish and another issue entirely. I never said I could prove anything to you, but i can prove things to myself.

I have tried to explain this to you a number of times but you aren't listening. For example, I asked what objective proofs you use to establish the reality of something in your life. Not how you could prove such things to me. You can't prove anything to me that you know to be true, if i chose not to believe and trust you or your proofs.

No you didn't ,all you did was tell me your personal subjective thoughts on the matter and tried to pass them off as objective..I didn't want to use the hackneyed phrases ,like "burden of proof falls on the claimant" and "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence".but all you do is tell me what you believe. I am not questioning your beliefs ,just asking for evidence you said you had ,but it appears that it is you who won't listen

fullywired

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Objective evidence is that which can be verified by a third party. A personal anecdote of an event or events in ones life may very well be true accounts, but they are not "objective evidence". I think you're misusing the phrase "objective evidence". You may have personal evidence, you may even be right, but what you do not have is objective evidence. If someone else saw what happened to you in your life, then they can corroborate your story, but it is still not objective. When people examine physical data that everyone has access to, this IS objective evidence. Everyone can access it, and everyone can analyse it. They may even arrive at contradictory conclusions of what that objective evidence means. Anecdotes and descriptions of events or people are not objectively verifiable unless everyone has access to it.

I see what you are trying to say, you don't have a "belief" in God, to you God is as real as your wife and your dog, you've experienced God and therefore God exists. But that is not objective evidence. It is personal evidence. In the context of your comment, the words "Personal objective" evidence are incompatible terms. As I said, I understand what you are trying to say, but it is by no means objective - Objective evidence by its very definition is something that other people can examine and verify. A personal experience, no matter how true, is not objectively verifiable.

This is incorrect. An objective evidence is one which can be judged objectively. No third part is required, otherwise a person living alone could NEVER know what was real and what was not and even a person living with others could never act without verification from others that their environment was real.

An individual can using observation and logic make an objective assessment of evidences. For example sight, touch, sound solididity, interaction with environment, are all examples of objective evidences. Ie thet yrelate to an object or entity. So, if i am alone and find i cannot walk through a wall that is OBJECTIVE physical evidence of the walls existence. If i could/should walk through it then the wall lacks objective evidence for its existence.

Certain metaphysicians and philosophers and even some quantum scientists argue that NOTHING has objective existence and everything only has subjective existence but this would also negate your own definition of objective existence and evidence.

You are talking about the transferrability of evidences, which is NOT required to establish their objective existence. Such transference occurs later, and separately.

To verify to a scientific community the proof of a theory etc. a scientist must be able to demonstrate objective repeatable proofs under certain conditions, but this is not required for either a scientist, or an individual, to KNOW that something is true. Eg the first human to strike flint to make fire KNEW it happened, but to convince others he would have to repeat the experiment in front of them. None the less if he lived alone he could use his knowledge to make fire for himself whenever he wanted to. He had objective proofs of his ability to do so, and used them to determine his behaviours.

I have the same personal objective evidences for god and angels, as i do for my wife and dog, and that the cave man had that flint could make fire. My original statement was that i had PERSONAL objective evidences Fully wired seems t think tha tobjective evidences cannot/do not exist without third party verification tha tis untrue.

I dispute from both basic definition and my own education and understanding that objective evidence requires any third party verification for an individual to be able to recognise it and know it. In english science and philosophy I was taught the difference between objective and subjective. Subjectivity is how we inrterpret physicala evidences from the pov of ourselves (the subject) The existence of physical objects is established by objective evidences relating to the object. The word objective comes from the evidence of an objects existence.

And of course where i claim objective evidences I DO have corroboration from either other witnesses OR physical evidences or both A voice in my head is subjective Alight or person seen by others is objective. A person I can see but walk through, has only subjective existence, a person I can see and not walk through has objective existence.

How then does one reconcile a being seen and commented on by a dozen individuals who carries and leaves a solid permanent object, but who then proceeds out onto a fifth floor isolated balcony and disappears? No one else has to believe this "story" but the internal evidences of the event are quite objective to those who were there. Only the way in which the disappearance occured is open to subjective interpretation but as no body was found five floors below, and the man was wearing a neat suit with no room for abseiling or base jumping equipment, the options are limited. The objective evidence is tha the disappeared off this balvcony The subjective question is how did he do so?

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is incorrect. An objective evidence is one which can be judged objectively. No third part is required, otherwise a person living alone could NEVER know what was real and what was not and even a person living with others could never act without verification from others that their environment was real. An individual can using observation and logic make an objective assessment of evidences. For example sight, touch, sound solididity, interaction with environment, are all examples of objective evidences. Ie thet yrelate to an object or entity. So, if i am alone and find i cannot walk through a wall that is OBJECTIVE physical evidence of the walls existence. If i could/should walk through it then the wall lacks objective evidence for its existence. Certain metaphysicians and philosophers and even some quantum scientists argue that NOTHING has objective existence and everything only has subjective existence but this would also negate your own definition of objective existence and evidence. You are talking about the transferrability of evidences, which is NOT required to establish their objective existence. Such transference occurs later, and separately. To verify to a scientific community the proof of a theory etc. a scientist must be able to demonstrate objective repeatable proofs under certain conditions, but this is not required for either a scientist, or an individual, to KNOW that something is true. Eg the first human to strike flint to make fire KNEW it happened, but to convince others he would have to repeat the experiment in front of them. None the less if he lived alone he could use his knowledge to make fire for himself whenever he wanted to. He had objective proofs of his ability to do so, and used them to determine his behaviours. I have the same personal objective evidences for god and angels, as i do for my wife and dog, and that the cave man had that flint could make fire. My original statement was that i had PERSONAL objective evidences Fully wired seems t think tha tobjective evidences cannot/do not exist without third party verification tha tis untrue. I dispute from both basic definition and my own education and understanding that objective evidence requires any third party verification for an individual to be able to recognise it and know it. In english science and philosophy I was taught the difference between objective and subjective. Subjectivity is how we inrterpret physicala evidences from the pov of ourselves (the subject) The existence of physical objects is established by objective evidences relating to the object. The word objective comes from the evidence of an objects existence. And of course where i claim objective evidences I DO have corroboration from either other witnesses OR physical evidences or both A voice in my head is subjective Alight or person seen by others is objective. A person I can see but walk through, has only subjective existence, a person I can see and not walk through has objective existence. How then does one reconcile a being seen and commented on by a dozen individuals who carries and leaves a solid permanent object, but who then proceeds out onto a fifth floor isolated balcony and disappears? No one else has to believe this "story" but the internal evidences of the event are quite objective to those who were there. Only the way in which the disappearance occured is open to subjective interpretation but as no body was found five floors below, and the man was wearing a neat suit with no room for abseiling or base jumping equipment, the options are limited. The objective evidence is tha the disappeared off this balvcony The subjective question is how did he do so?

You seem to be in a majority of one

fullywired

"‘There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know’." note-icon.jpg

‘Works of Thomas Chalkley

Edited by fullywired

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To give the non-answer, meaning is something we create so that we may frame and categorize our existence.

Why do we need meaning in anything? Is it not enough to simply let things be as they are? This works in a 'zen' state, much like the idea of be the change you want to bring to the world. It all sounds good, and it is good, on a certain scale. On a bigger scale, however, creating meaning allows us to set goals, to learn, to plan, to predict. All things that, to use an overused statement, can be used to our benefit or to our detriment.

In my own life I have found I do not need to create a meaning to life's events. I remember that the the vast majority of actions in the universe will happen no matter what my desire is, and accept them for what they are. Nothing more, nothing less. Words are easy though. As the saying goes, things are easy when the going is good. It is when we face a challenge to our thoughts, or our very lives, that we then see if our worldviews really can hold water. For me, the most recent challenge to my view on all of this was the stillbirth of my daughter. Facing death at this level is was a good challenge to how I viewed life and death, and their meanings. I came away from that with a further respect for the fragility of life, but not with any desire to read any deep meaning into it at all. As has been said many times, we live, we die, that is it.

Kevin, my heart goes out to you and your partner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to quote Jonathan Lockwood Huie

"Time, like life itself, has no inherent meaning. We give our own meaning to time as to life."

if > We are the evidence of god then Is god the evidence of us ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to be in a majority of one

fullywired

"‘There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know’." note-icon.jpg

‘Works of Thomas Chalkley

It only needs one to be correct. :innocent: Just look up a few dictionary definitions on the meaning of objective and subjective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It only needs one to be correct. :innocent: Just look up a few dictionary definitions on the meaning of objective and subjective.

I repeat the excerpt from previous posts or have you chosen to ignore what you don't like

.

Easy Ways to Remember Objective and Subjective

Objective : sounds like the word object. You should be objective whenever you are discussing an object, something concrete that you can hold or touch. The facts that make up your objective statement should also be concrete, solid objects.

Subjective : is just the opposite. You can’t point to subjective subjects. They are all in your head and your past experiences. Subjective opinions are ephemeral and subject to any number of factors that can range from facts to emotions.

Examples of Objective and Subjective

Objective : scientific facts are objective as are mathematical proofs; essentially anything that can be backed up with solid data.

Subjective : opinions, interpretations, and any type of marketing presentation are all subjective.

Summary:

1.Objective and subjective statements are used by speakers to get their points across.

2.Objective statements are facts that can be verified by third parties while subjective statements may or may not be entirely true as they are colored by the opinions of the speaker.

3.Objective statements are most commonly found in the hard sciences, whereas subjective statements are generally used to describe the arts.

fullywired

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I repeat the excerpt from previous posts or have you chosen to ignore what you don't like

.

Easy Ways to Remember Objective and Subjective

Objective : sounds like the word object. You should be objective whenever you are discussing an object, something concrete that you can hold or touch. The facts that make up your objective statement should also be concrete, solid objects.

Subjective : is just the opposite. You can’t point to subjective subjects. They are all in your head and your past experiences. Subjective opinions are ephemeral and subject to any number of factors that can range from facts to emotions.

Examples of Objective and Subjective

Objective : scientific facts are objective as are mathematical proofs; essentially anything that can be backed up with solid data.

Subjective : opinions, interpretations, and any type of marketing presentation are all subjective.

Summary:

1.Objective and subjective statements are used by speakers to get their points across.

2.Objective statements are facts that can be verified by third parties while subjective statements may or may not be entirely true as they are colored by the opinions of the speaker.

3.Objective statements are most commonly found in the hard sciences, whereas subjective statements are generally used to describe the arts.

fullywired

This is spot on, especially the bolded bit. That is how I know god and angels have a concrete, objective, independent existence. They are concrete, and can be touched and yes, even held. (Like my wife and my dog) They DO NOT exist in my head, but in the solid real and objective world. I could point to them and you would see them. You would hear them speak, when they spoke to me, and if you bumped into them you would feel them.

You appeared to be thinking that i was talking about some sort of imaginary beings, like fairies.

I am pleased we have been able to resolve this disagreement on common and rational grounds. :whistle:

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

.)

.sorry mistake

Edited by fullywired

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is spot on, especially the bolded bit. That is how I know god and angels have a concrete, objective, independent existence. They are concrete, and can be touched and yes, even held. (Like my wife and my dog) They DO NOT exist in my head, but in the solid real and objective world. I could point to them and you would see them. You would hear them speak, when they spoke to me, and if you bumped into them you would feel them.

You appeared to be thinking that i was talking about some sort of imaginary beings, like fairies.

I am pleased we have been able to resolve this disagreement on common and rational grounds. :whistle:

Now you have resolved the problem there should be no reason why you can't post the concrete ,verifiable ,demonstrable evidence that you claim to have.

and please no walls and dogs or wives Objective : scientific facts are objective as are mathematical proofs; essentially anything that can be backed up with solid data.

i am rather surprised that you don't believe in fairies,I thought you would be a dead cert for having them at the bottom of your garden

fullywired

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Now you have resolved the problem there should be no reason why you can't post the concrete ,verifiable ,demonstrable evidence that you claim to have.

and please no walls and dogs or wives Objective : scientific facts are objective as are mathematical proofs; essentially anything that can be backed up with solid data.

i am rather surprised that you don't believe in fairies,I thought you would be a dead cert for having them at the bottom of your garden

fullywired

We are going around in circles. You are again asking for transferrable proofs on which you would decide their veracity. Suppose i showed you a picture of an angel.How would YOU know what it was? Suppose i showed you a picture of a woman. How would you know it was my wife? And to go a step further in logic, if you had never met a woman, how would you know it was a woman?

This is not about your belief or disbelief, but about how I decide what is rea,l One cannot transfer touch, sound, or image unless it is recorded.

Whether images sounds etc of god or angels are recordable I do not know. I don't own a mobile phone, and I havent used a camera, outside of work, for 10 years.

I can only assume that what I, and other independent witnesses, can touch, see, and hear, could be recorded. But all that DATA is available to me and to others. Whether it can be transferred to you or not is irrelevant to MY knowledge. The rest depends on your own knoledge /experience, and belief/ disbelief. I have no interest in changing your belief, only in demonstrating how I know anything is real and physical, ie via the available data that I have.That data proves to me that angels and god are quite capable of manifesting as independent, physical, and sapient self- willed entities, as well as in other forms. Ps i dont believe in angels or god or fairies.. I never have. But i have met god and angels which disallows both belief and disbelief in them.

I havent met a fairy, so I suspend both belief and disbelief. I am not saying they do not exist, just that I haven't met one yet, and thus cannot say.

Edited by Mr Walker
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are going around in circles. You are again asking for transferrable proofs on which you would decide their veracity. Suppose i showed you a picture of an angel.How would YOU know what it was? Suppose i showed you a picture of a woman. How would you know it was my wife? And to go a step further in logic, if you had never met a woman, how would you know it was a woman?

This is not about your belief or disbelief, but about how I decide what is rea,l One cannot transfer touch, sound, or image unless it is recorded.

Whether images sounds etc of god or angels are recordable I do not know. I don't own a mobile phone, and I havent used a camera, outside of work, for 10 years.

I can only assume that what I, and other independent witnesses, can touch, see, and hear, could be recorded. But all that DATA is available to me and to others. Whether it can be transferred to you or not is irrelevant to MY knowledge. The rest depends on your own knoledge /experience, and belief/ disbelief. I have no interest in changing your belief, only in demonstrating how I know anything is real and physical, ie via the available data that I have.That data proves to me that angels and god are quite capable of manifesting as independent, physical, and sapient self- willed entities, as well as in other forms. Ps i dont believe in angels or god or fairies.. I never have. But i have met god and angels which disallows both belief and disbelief in them.

I havent met a fairy, so I suspend both belief and disbelief. I am not saying they do not exist, just that I haven't met one yet, and thus cannot say.

If that's the case ,your evidence is subjective not objective,. .quote I have no interest in changing your belief, only in demonstrating how I know anything is real .That is the whole point you can't demonstrate it, your back to telling me what you believe.I have not mentioned my beliefs or lack of them .all I ask is you show us the evidence you claim to have but it's like extracting teeth with you, Your reluctance to impart it suggests you don't have any

fullywired

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If that's the case ,your evidence is subjective not objective,. .quote I have no interest in changing your belief, only in demonstrating how I know anything is real .That is the whole point you can't demonstrate it, your back to telling me what you believe.I have not mentioned my beliefs or lack of them .all I ask is you show us the evidence you claim to have but it's like extracting teeth with you, Your reluctance to impart it suggests you don't have any

fullywired

The issue here is that you, and PA, are taking the naturalist definition of objective and presuming it is the only correct definition despite the fact that the dictionary does not agree with you. Transference to you or access by you is not part of the definition of objective. Edited by IamsSon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

singularity is a rarity in a subjectively restricted objective dependent reality

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue here is that you, and PA, are taking the naturalist definition of objective and presuming it is the only correct definition despite the fact that the dictionary does not agree with you. Transference to you or access by you is not part of the definition of objective.

I have made it quite plain that I am after concrete verifiable ,demonstrable evidence ,you know that and mr walker knows that, If you are telling me he can't do that ,all that he needs to do, is to say so .Or if he can produce the evidence, then do so. What's the problem? I am not entering a discussion on semantics

fullywired

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If that's the case ,your evidence is subjective not objective,. .quote I have no interest in changing your belief, only in demonstrating how I know anything is real .That is the whole point you can't demonstrate it, your back to telling me what you believe.I have not mentioned my beliefs or lack of them .all I ask is you show us the evidence you claim to have but it's like extracting teeth with you, Your reluctance to impart it suggests you don't have any

fullywired

Rather, your inability to comrehend what I am treying to explain to you reflects your lack of personal experience with such things.

You just do not /can not accept that an angel or a manifestation of god can have the same material properties as other things like a dog or a woman or a man probably because of your belief that they onlty exist as constucts of human imagination.

Now dogs and women whom I know have objective proofs for their existence which are not transferable to you, yet you accept their existence because you have experience with similar entities. But a ghost or an alien or an angel or a god is an unknown quality to you, and you are a person who refuses to even countenance the existence of such things. That is your choice to make, not mine, and it is not my role to convince you . But i do have to know, as a logical, educated and rational being, that given the same evidences, everything one encounters in life in life has equal validity and reality.

I am well aware of the form and nature of delusion and hallucination; and physical realities have very different and measurable objective quilities which make them readily discernible.

My lack of, for example a photo, does not make an experience subjective. Nor does it invalidate the reality of a entity.

On the other hand a photo of god or an angel manifested, would not constitute, even to me, objective evidence if i had not been there to observe the picture being taken and its processing.

I would need to know the context around, and in, which the picture was taken, and to have verified proof of its original and untampered nature, before i even began to accept it as any form of evidence. And such proofs offer only a partial understanding of an objective reality, even if they are genuine.

To reiterate, I personally possess the same objective evidences of an angel's existence as i do of my wifes existence. Why should i need any more? I can touch feel see and interact with both. I can watch both interact with other people and with the environment around them.

I have no desire or need to prove my wife's existence to you, but this would be impossible if you refused to believe me, or lacked trust in my word and evidences, despite the fact that I live wth her objective physical existence daily.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have made it quite plain that I am after concrete verifiable ,demonstrable evidence ,you know that and mr walker knows that, If you are telling me he can't do that ,all that he needs to do, is to say so .Or if he can produce the evidence, then do so. What's the problem? I am not entering a discussion on semantics

fullywired

That was never my claim, even if it is your desire. I possess PERSONAL objective evidences for god/angels existence which are exactly the same as the personal objective evidences for all other things in my life.

Unless you are claiming that nothing in life has objective independent existence, then those claims stand. Touch, sight, smell, sound, and logical analysis of observation, are the senses and means by which we establish the onbjective existence of everything in our lives. And each thing we encounter from birth to death, must be subject to the same (not more and not less) proofs of physical existence to establish its independent existence. God requires only the same physical proofs as a butterfly to verify his existence outside one's mind.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God realy helps you by generating the positive vibrations in life.One understand his blessings is known as thiest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was never my claim, even if it is your desire. I possess PERSONAL objective evidences for god/angels existence which are exactly the same as the personal objective evidences for all other things in my life.

Unless you are claiming that nothing in life has objective independent existence, then those claims stand. Touch, sight, smell, sound, and logical analysis of observation, are the senses and means by which we establish the onbjective existence of everything in our lives. And each thing we encounter from birth to death, must be subject to the same (not more and not less) proofs of physical existence to establish its independent existence. God requires only the same physical proofs as a butterfly to verify his existence outside one's mind.

I am not claiming anything just asking for your evidence but each time I ask you go off on one of your long discourses.that doesn't prove anything,

when proof is the thing that is wanted

fullywired

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather, your inability to comrehend what I am treying to explain to you reflects your lack of personal experience with such things.

You just do not /can not accept that an angel or a manifestation of god can have the same material properties as other things like a dog or a woman or a man

Again, I apologise for interrupting. In contrast to your assertion, I CAN and DO accept that an angel or manifestation of God can have material properties. However, unless that can be studied by a third party without relying solely on your (or anyone else's) say so, then it is not objective. Even if someone was with you when you experienced what you did and claims exactly the same as you, all it does is provide another eye-witness account. Eye-witness accounts of events are NOT objective proof. The very fact that you are sharing an event with a third party excludes it from being objective.

Does that mean you are wrong? No. Does it mean what you saw was wrong, or perhaps an hallucination? No! You may very well be 100% right in everything you say. But it is NOT objective! Never will be. At least, not in the sense that 99.99999% of people think of when they ask someone for objective proof. And with respect to your experiences, I don't think it applicable to cater to that 0.00001% by accepting the way you use "objective" in the context of this discussion.

~ Regards, PA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

That was never my claim, even if it is your desire. I possess PERSONAL objective evidences for god/angels existence which are exactly the same as the personal objective evidences for all other things in my life.

Unless you are claiming that nothing in life has objective independent existence, then those claims stand. Touch, sight, smell, sound, and logical analysis of observation, are the senses and means by which we establish the onbjective existence of everything in our lives. And each thing we encounter from birth to death, must be subject to the same (not more and not less) proofs of physical existence to establish its independent existence. God requires only the same physical proofs as a butterfly to verify his existence outside one's mind.

Mw, you are correct, we do take in information via our senses, but it is subjective,(and filtered) to be able to say your personal experience is objective doesn't work here. You can say I have not had the experience and you would be correct, but this doesn't mean anything as far as establishing your angel hypothesis(If this ...then that). Having others verify for you isn't going to work either without evidence to support your findings, e.g. an experiment that can be reproduced and the same results can be concluded by anyone.

Does this mean I think you making this up, No, it doesn't, I think it is exactly in line with your shema's/ perspective that you would interpret your personal experience as an angel sighting. You would be correct to come back with a post that says I cannot understand this because I do not have your schema and perspective, you would be 100 percent on this, I don't and cannot your perspective is your own a unique reflection of the life and experiences of MW.

Edited by Sherapy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.